Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 868852E003A
	for <pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@developer.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 12 May 2008 11:41:32 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 33050-04
	for <pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@developer.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 12 May 2008 11:41:23 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com (yw-out-2324.google.com [74.125.46.30])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4465E2E0031
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Mon, 12 May 2008 11:41:29 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 3so1388143ywj.73
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Mon, 12 May 2008 07:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	bh=MYecVN9TpSg1Pv++BX5AhISBo3LAFsaZTVydx/8DUBo=;
	b=jas+qjKhHwBZ6Z/FI6B/GcUkUcfXa6kv25eQ+aWC8vC6wKNPPp2p4i6s9HBrtxPqGcQB4STT5U5dEl6MWKwtxEH8OHXAolpJMb/tKO2R2IA4WJf3qyVXBaStv1M6VolHeJcLoELlfWF0DwkA0NsAH57N+wX7CR5F5JTtAy6ohC4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=n579zJs627DSU4t8fbAGfdA+QWgzRbj4OEw5zvvH1cKVmlLhirGSaAcviWfOnTA9h+UYPp6J3VuVaKs2C6wOspy9Rv2Rn0vFAtcef1scxk3qWm7XLG3fC+17/CrKGRYNaFwaAs2n5w2xBvVl01qiqK4NQ5xV6uwzIp4KhPa5zus=
Received: by 10.142.110.3 with SMTP id i3mr3298812wfc.203.1210603283125;
	Mon, 12 May 2008 07:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.88.10 with HTTP; Mon, 12 May 2008 07:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <8d01be800805120741h6bba86d5p30bc54e6daa184e9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 16:41:22 +0200
From: "James Farrugia" <james.farrugia@gmail.com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Orphan TOAST object
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <18954.1210601335@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_2286_5640225.1210603283118"
References: <8d01be800805110946r792efacdp3dbe02829b6da7a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20553.1210525788@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<8d01be800805111017w6910acdapaf66f0b56908d36e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20763.1210526763@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<8d01be800805120025u3a49fa39rc7033a2480b4982f@mail.gmail.com>
	<18954.1210601335@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200805/93
X-Sequence-Number: 29177

------=_Part_2286_5640225.1210603283118
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Problem has now been solved.  Thanks a lot for all your help.

On 5/12/08, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> "James Farrugia" <james.farrugia@gmail.com> writes:
> > One last thing...can we run into data-loss problems with successfully
> > vacuumed tables even if there is one unvacuumed database object; what
> would
> > have happened if I ignored to vacuum that rogue pg_toast (which was the
> only
> > unvacuumed object within the entire database)?
>
> The database would have shut down when you got to the
> 2-billion-transactions mark.  So you'd have had to solve the problem
> sooner or later anyway.
>
>                        regards, tom lane
>

------=_Part_2286_5640225.1210603283118
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Problem has now been solved.&nbsp; Thanks a lot for all your help.<br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/12/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Tom Lane</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us">tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">&quot;James Farrugia&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:james.farrugia@gmail.com">james.farrugia@gmail.com</a>&gt; writes:<br>
&gt; One last thing...can we run into data-loss problems with successfully<br>&gt; vacuumed tables even if there is one unvacuumed database object; what would<br>&gt; have happened if I ignored to vacuum that rogue pg_toast (which was the only<br>
&gt; unvacuumed object within the entire database)?<br><br>The database would have shut down when you got to the<br>2-billion-transactions mark.&nbsp;&nbsp;So you&#39;d have had to solve the problem<br>sooner or later anyway.<br><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; regards, tom lane<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_2286_5640225.1210603283118--